Bye Bye TorrentSpy and ISOHunt Both Plan to Start Filtering Copyrighted Content

-from Zero Paid

TorrentSpy decides to not block US visitors and chooses to filter pirated content from its search results instead, something which ISOHunt plans to do as well.

It’s a sad day for those in the US who use TorrentSpy or ISOHunt, two of the world’s largest public trackers sites, to find movies, music, and more to download for it seems the party’s nearing an end.

It’s being reported today that TorrentSpy and ISOHunt plans to use a hash-based system called FileRights to automatically filter BitTorrent trackers that link to pirated content from its search results to help satisfy a suit brought against them by the MPAA for the illegal facilitation of copyrighted material.

FileRights will use file hashes provided by individual copyright owners of their content that will detect and remove any torrent trackers that link to unauthorized copies. Copyright owners sign up for an account with the system and then enter the hash values of their content into the system database. FileRights will then automatically remove any links to this content.

The site says it works as follows:

FileRights.com maintains a large database of copyrighted works managed by the content holders themselves. This database forms a master list of copyrighted materials that should be removed from BitTorrent sites. When a content holder uploads information about the works they have found on a bittorrent site FileRights then distributes this information to our website subscribers so that work can be removed (filtered) from their search results. The entire process is automated to minimize the effort required by both the content holder and website operator.

“With FileRights we used the community networking power of the Web to automate and aggregate the entire copyright filtration process,” said Justin Bunnel, one of TorrentSpy’s founders and CEO of FileRights. “Torrentspy now uses the FileRights cooperative filtering process to filter search results on its popular search engine.”

“No longer will site by site DMCA affidavits be required for copyright owners to remove links to allegedly infringing files. With FileRights we used the community networking power of the web to automate and aggregate the entire copyright filtration process,” he continued.

Ira Rothkin, TorrentSpy’s attorney, also notes that ISOHunt, the subject of an MPAA lawsuit as well, will so too be using FileRights to filter copyrighted material from its search results.

Jacqueline Chooljian, a federal judge for the Central District of California in Los Angeles ruled on May 29th that TorrentSpy must begin tracking users’ activity on the site, a ruling which TorrentSpy is still appealing but, which will most likely stand due to the fact that the US Govt has gone to great lengths to ensure copyright protection despite the costs to the privacy of consumers and to the neutrality of the internet as a whole.

If TorrentSpy and ISOHunt do start filtering pirated content as stated, it will most likely simply mean more traffic for those file-sharing Swedes at The Pirate Bay and to increased usage of Newsgroups and private BitTorrent tracker sites instead. As is always the case with a crackdown on a specific file-sharing program or site, it merely means that users turn to alternative sites and programs but, never do they usually throw in the towel and go legit.

So far I haven’t notice any filtering of either site’s search results but, it’s hard to believe they would do this instead of merely blocking access to US visitors and stand up for the principles of user privacy and net neutrality. By eliminating copyrighted video content as requested by the MPAA they will only lose traffic to competing sites like the Pirate Bay and others and merely be reduced to glorified porn and PC game hubs.

**UPDATE:

ISOHunt has posted a response in regards to filtering copyrighted content

First of all, we do filtering on links that’s been identified for various reasons. It maybe virus infected files in torrents, it maybe copyright owners requesting takedown of links to their material. For copyright takedowns, we’ve long had a copyright policy and procedure for it. This is not censorship on content, this is filtering for identified abuse. Although DMCA has often been used as a way to censor, that’s a problem with the DMCA and the “request and takedown” regime itself, and the way some websites blindly accept takedown requests.

While I claim to be no saint, we do random sampling on requested links and verify against the identity of the owner requesting their takedown. We have on occasions rejected requests due to situations like music companies requesting takedown of torrents that looks like porn. That also goes into problems of how do you know whether torrents are what they claim to be by their filenames, but that’s another issue.

On the recent news of our partnership with FileRights.com, some clarification on a lot of misinformed reporting and comments. We haven’t started using their database yet, the system is still being developed. The idea is to take some pain away from the current “email takedown request, verify links, respond” process to “establish identity as copyright holder or its agent once, use API’s to automate the requests, and we random sample the legitimacy of the requests”. Nothing more or less is done to our copyright policy for filtering based on identified, unauthorized links to copyrighted works. It’s not DRM and it’s not censorship. It’s to automate the process so it’s easier for content owners (request once instead of 100 different BitTorrent trackers and sites), and easier for us (verify and process once for multiple sites, and no need for legalese in emails).

If you don’t like it, take it up with your congressmen about the DMCA if you are in the US. Or, seed torrents of stuff that you produced, and no problems for any of us. Wink Bram Cohen did say something about BitTorrent not designed for piracy, and I think he’s right.

>> This reply by ISOHunt brings up some interesting questions and responses, not the least of which is the statement about “BitTorrent not being designed for piracy”(Say what?).

In a response to this posting on ISOHunt a Canadian has the gumption to note how insane the whole affair is, that as a CANADIAN visiting a CANADIAN SITE why is it that it is allowing an AMERICAN LOBBYING GROUP to tell it what to do?

Perhaps the real blame lies in us, the American people, for consistently allowing by default our corporations and our country to tell others what’s best for them and how to run their show. Net neutrality may just be a pipe dream after all if we’re allowed to scare the whole world into complying with our own self-interests.

AT&T to start scanning their users for pirate material…

So AT&T wants to began to scan every file that people send over their network, I think that this is a balant violation of peoples privacy, but since AT&T already gave your phone records to the4 government I guess they could care less. This was brought on because of a deal that they have with Hollywood, about selling TV shows, or so such. I would think the internet would be up in arms about this, but because AT&T gets the Iphone I guess people will just take one for the team.
LA Times [via Broadband Reports]

RIAA Accused of Extortion, Conspiracy, etc..

Aren’t these the people that said that tapes would kill them? Apparently RIAA is going to court for extortion, conspiracy, computer fraud, trespass, and kicking babies (I think don’t quote me) All in all I think that this is rather funny, because all I can say is it’s about time. I’m pretty sure what these people are doing violates some parts of the Bill of Rights.

• In the case of UMG v. Del Cid, the defendant has filed the following five (5) counterclaims against the RIAA, under Florida, federal, and California law:

  1. Trespass

  2. Computer Fraud and Abuse (18 USC 1030)

  3. Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices (Fla. Stat. 501.201)

  4. Civil Extortion (CA Penal Code 519 & 523)

  5. Civil Conspiracy involving (a) use of private investigators without license in violation of Fla. Stat. Chapter 493; (b) unauthorized access to a protected computer system, in interstate commerce, for the purpose of obtaining information in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (a)(2)(C); (c) extortion in violation of Ca. Penal Code §§ 519 and 523; and (d) knowingly collecting an unlawful consumer debt, and using abus[ive] means to do so, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a et seq. and Fla. Stat. § 559.72 et seq.

hopefull they’ll get convicted but since the courts love the bigh corps, Enron, they’ll probably just get slapped on the wrist.
Recording Industry vs the People

New HD-DVD and Blu-Ray processing key

Already out and about is the new code for all newly released and soon to be released HD-DVDs and Blu-Rays. As much as I do not want to get an angry letter in the mail from an angry business man, I’m still going to post the number. so here it is:

• 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2

have fun and do what you wish with it

DRM-free iTunes Songs Have Embedded User Info

So Itunes has apparently started to release songs free of DRM protection rights. A big win for Pirates and normal people who use Itunes and don’t have ipods, right? Turns out that the first parts of the almost epic win is wrong. These songs that have no DRM are embedded with your user information. So if you end up uploading the songs you bought, you could get busted. Sound like this is a win more for RIAA not the pirates.
TUAW Tip: Don’t Torrent That Song… [TUAW]

DRM group pledges to fight Digg rebels

– From Times Online

Bloggers who published the key that would unlock the copy protection on HD-DVDs have been threatened with legal action
Jonathan Richards

Bloggers who posted links to a software key that would unlock the copy protection on some high-definition DVDs have been threatened with legal action.

The entertainment industry-backed consortium which developed the protection said that it was looking at “technical and legal tools” to confront bloggers who made the key available, saying they had “crossed the line.”

The 32-digit key appeared widely on the internet this week, including in a YouTube video and on T-shirts, and many bloggers considered publishing it as an exercise in free speech, one alluding to Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.

Michael Ayers, chair of the group that built the software, which uses digital rights management (DRM) technology, said that there was “no intent from us to interfere with people’s right to discuss copy protection,” and that the body had received “good cooperation from most folk” in preventing the leak of the key.

“Some people clearly think it’s a First Amendment issue. We respect free speech – we know some people are critical of the technology,” Mr Ayers told the BBC. “But a line is crossed when we start seeing keys being distributed and tools for circumvention. You step outside of the realm of protected free speech then.”

Earlier this week a row broke out when Digg, a popular technology news site, took down links to the key, saying that it had received ‘ cease and desist’ order from the group which developed the protection, known as AACS.

Facing open revolt from readers angry that the site had deferred to the owners of Advanced Access Content System (AACS), the site’s founder, Kevin Rose, reposted the link to the key, saying that he would “deal with the consequences.”

Mr Ayers would not comment specifically on the AACS group’s plans, but said it would take “whatever action is appropriate. We hope the public respects our position and complies with applicable laws.”

He said that tracking down those who had published the key was a “resource-intensive exercise”.

According to a Google search, almost 700,000 pages have published the key.

Jonathan Zittrain, a professor of internet law at Harvard Law School, said that assuming the key could break a DVD, it’s distribution would infringe the provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DCMA).

“If a site isn’t policing the distribution of the code, and a publisher has issued a takedown notice, which is then not obeyed, they would likely reserve their right to sue,” he said.

09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0

What is it?

It’S the original HD-DVD Processing Key for most movies released so far. This means the number is precisely the key you need in order to decrypt and watch HD-DVD movies in Linux (Insert VLC, etc).

It seems though at the moment that all DVD’s made after April 23rd have a new Processing key. Some people are skeptical but others say that a new processing key should be out in a matter of week’s.

The number caused a huge controversy on May 1st, 2007 on the famous news site “Digg.com”. It was posted originally under the article “Spread this number. Now” and was deleted well after 10,000+ Digg’s. The deletion of the story though upset Digg users as they we’re trying to have a moment of true “Freedom of speech” while also “Sticking it to the man”. Another story soon spout up called “Spread this number. Again.” and got well over 15,000 Digg’s before it was deleted. After that story was deleted users were reporting that they were banned from digg.com for digging the story and/or commenting on the original stories. Campaigns shot up fast to spread the number faster and for the first time on the Internet a widespread organized revolt happened. Users posted hundreds upon hundreds of stories including the number and spammed the comment boards on digg, and they didn’t stop there. Domains were created with the Processing key inside the domain and more. Finally May 2nd came around and after countless battles digg finally gave in to the community and posted their own story that included the key and said “We will side with the community, no matter what”. The key has made much publicity on sites ranging from “woot.com” to other well-known sites.

Many news publications describe May 1st, 2007 as the official day for the “1st Digital Revolt”. One can only imagine what will happen when the next key comes out.

With that in mind, the best way to describe the whole thing is to quote the New York Time’s itself:

“For most people this is about freedom of speech, and an industry that thinks that just because it has high-priced lawyers it has the final say”

note I posted the number because I had heard that this is no longer the key.

BitTorrent Exploit Vulnerability Discovered in Latest Opera

-from torrent freak

Opera, the popular cross-platform web browser has a bug in its BitTorrent engine which leaves it vulnerable to an attack which renders its host machine unusable.

Opera

It is being reported that Opera v9.20 is vulnerable to an attack which causes it to consume 100% of its host machine’s resources, rendering the PC unusable.

Proof of concept code has been published which shows that the attack can be triggered when people try to download a malformed .torrent file. The bug causes the host machine running Windows XP SP1 or SP2 to become unstable when people try to download a malformed .torrent file.

There is currently no work-around so anyone worried about this situation should disable the BitTorrent engine within Opera by following the instructions found on Opera’s site.

June 20th 2006 saw the release of Opera V9, which included BitTorrent support for the first time. At the time, Jon S. von Tetzchner, CEO, Opera Software said “For Opera 9, we worked hard to push the limits of what people expect from a Web browser, with increased speed, new Web standards support and innovative features such as widgets and BitTorrent”

Anyone who has relied on Opera for their BitTorrent needs but would like to try an alternative should check out the official uTorrent Beginners Guide and some of our previous guides on using other clients.

aXXo Torrents Exploited by Malware Peddlers

-from Torrentfreak

When someone becomes a success by earning the admiration of their peers, there will always be the ‘hangers on’ who want to share the spoils of success. For aXXo, the most popular DVD ripper on BitTorrent, it’s about people using his name to further their own, sinister aim: to install malware on as many file-sharers machines as possible.

With an estimated one million people downloading aXXo rips every month, aXXo is very popular with BitTorrent fans all over the world. But as is so often the case, fame comes at a price and it’s almost inevitable that people will jump onto the back of other’s success and use it for their own aims.

Back in January, the MPAA were caught uploading fake torrents labeled up as proper aXXo releases with the goal to collect IP-addresses.

The last few months we have seen a new player enter the ‘give aXXo a bad name’ market, and pirates who have experienced the scenario detailed below will be only too aware of how unpleasant it is;

1. Download a .torrent file you think is a proper one from aXXo
2. Discover the movie is in not in the correct .avi format but a .rar archive
3. .rar file is passworded and the password can be found by installing software called BitGrabber.
4. Installing the software does not provide a password but instead installs malware.

According to an administrator on the BitComet forums, BitGrabber is the same software as BitRoll, which we reported on back in 2006. Instances of the swizzor aka lop malware can come from installing BitGrabber. Anyone whose PC is infected should follow these removal instructions.

Genuine aXXo releases are tracked by a well known tracker, and generally look like this;

1. Most aXXo releases are just under 700mb but no more than 900mb
2. All releases are labeled with these conventions:
name of movie[year]DvDrip[Eng]-aXXo.avi
name of movie[year]DvDrip.AC3[Eng]-aXXo.avi
3. The release will include two other files;
IMPORTANT.Read carefully before you enjoy this movie.txt
movienamehere-aXXo.nfo

Confirmed aXXo torrents can be found here and here, and it’s always helpful to read the user comments on the site where you downloaded the .torrent. Please be aware that most aXXo torrents are copyrighted, downloading these files is not allowed in some countries.

Maybe the_dwarfer could update the aXXo Prayer to include lines about fakes and malware.

Students largely ignore RIAA instant settlement offers

-From ARS Technica
By Ken Fisher | Published: March 26, 2007 – 12:13PM CT

While the RIAA is touting a settlement percentage north of 25 percent with its recent campaign against file sharing at US colleges and universities, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of students are shunning the insta-settlement approach. According to the RIAA, some 116 students have used their new web site to settle copyright infringement claims, but that means that another 284, or 71 percent of students contacted through the program aren’t taking the easy way out. At least not yet.
Related Stories

The average settlement amount offered by the RIAA is about $3,000, so this latest pre-litigation strategy has drummed up at least $350,000 in revenue by our estimate. That’s no small amount of money, but considering that music sales this quarter were nearly $100 million, one wonders if the haul from this strategy is worth the public image problems that it’s deepening. Then again, public image hasn’t been something that appears to concern the RIAA, but with music sales on the decline, perhaps they ought to be taking this more seriously.

A student who received a pre-litigation letter told Ars that he refused to engage their offer because they offer zero proof of what is alleged. “It’s like receiving blackmail. ‘We know what you did, pay us’ is the message, but they don’t really know me or what I have done,” he wrote. The student wishes to remain anonymous.

He knows that students who ignore the pre-litigation letters are just asking the RIAA to pursue them more, but he hopes that when the RIAA is actually faced with having to produce evidence that they’ll simply come up short. The current approach by the RIAA is to simply tell students that each song shared is a $750 violation, so one’s fine is often calculated based on the number of songs the RIAA says that they’ve shared. Yet the RIAA offers no proof of their claims, while sometimes trying to make students feel like they’re getting a deal.

Despite the low response, the RIAA believes that the program is going well, and they have sent another 405 pre-litigation letters to students at 23 universities. “This is not our preferred course, but we hope that students will understand the consequences of stealing music and that our partners in the college community will appreciate the proactive role they can play,” said Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA, in a statement.

According to the Associated Press, one student received a letter demanding $590,000 in payment. Such letters are apparently only sent to egregious file sharers, for the average settlement rarely tops $5,000. After all, the RIAA wants to offer a good deal, you see.